This entry was posted
on Sunday, January 8th, 2006 at 1:20 am and is filed under Del.icio.us Links.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I saw that Slate article a while back and didn’t like it. It’s true that the press gushes about Apple sometimes, but the language he consistently uses is extremely biased. To explain the press’ (and consumers’) fascination he uses words and phrases like “Supreme Soviet” and “reality distortion” and “psi powers.” When it comes to explaining Apple’s success in the portable digital music player market, however, we’re left with a less colorful explanation: “good luck.”
The most obvious reason the press takes notice when Apple makes a video iPod is very simple and yet unmentioned in the article. It’s true that they weren’t the first and they may not yet have the best technical specs, but they own the market in this area, making their foray into video newsworthy in a way that iRiver’s isn’t. Put simply, Apple’s iPod announcements are newsworthy precisely because everyone has one.
And why does everyone have one? Maybe it’s because of Apple’s skill at “seducing the consuming masses.” Or maybe it’s just because they make a nice product.
I actually linked to that article a while back, but then yesterday saw a pointer to it and realized I had never added it to my links archive so I thought I’d give it some more exposure.
I didn’t realize everybody had an iPod, can you back them up with some figures please? Also, there are lots of things many people have yet they don’t get free PR. For example, Windows has a higher than 95% market share, which one can certainly consider a majority and that “everyone has it” compared to 1-2% Apple market share. Yet compare the amount of media attention to Windows vs MacOS. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to hear about Windows all the time, but to suggest that the iPod get so much attention solely because of market share seems a bit off.
By the way, I had also linked to this spoof ad back then and there is always the iFlea video as well. How exactly was the iPod mini that much better and different from the original iPod and then the iPod nano that much better and different from the mini that it deserved so much press? Neither was that much better or different, Apple is just brilliant with getting free PR for their products. They certainly cannot be faulted for that.
“Everyone” is hyperbole, yes. I only mean that Apple is the by-far dominant player in this arena. Windows is dominant in the OS arena, you say, and it doesn’t get a lot of good press. This is true, so clearly dominance in the marketplace isn’t sufficient to get that kind of media attention. Another factor is that Apple’s iPod is more than a utilitarian tool; it’s fashion, “cool” and sex appeal. Sometimes people dismiss this factor as trickery and marketing slight of hand. I, myself, think it’s perfectly legitimate to make things that are elegant and beautiful as well as functional. People invest themselves emotionally in such products.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:54 am
I saw that Slate article a while back and didn’t like it. It’s true that the press gushes about Apple sometimes, but the language he consistently uses is extremely biased. To explain the press’ (and consumers’) fascination he uses words and phrases like “Supreme Soviet” and “reality distortion” and “psi powers.” When it comes to explaining Apple’s success in the portable digital music player market, however, we’re left with a less colorful explanation: “good luck.”
The most obvious reason the press takes notice when Apple makes a video iPod is very simple and yet unmentioned in the article. It’s true that they weren’t the first and they may not yet have the best technical specs, but they own the market in this area, making their foray into video newsworthy in a way that iRiver’s isn’t. Put simply, Apple’s iPod announcements are newsworthy precisely because everyone has one.
And why does everyone have one? Maybe it’s because of Apple’s skill at “seducing the consuming masses.” Or maybe it’s just because they make a nice product.
In other news, Microsoft the other day announced – get this – that you will soon be able to download music off that internet thingy! Who knew! 🙂
January 8th, 2006 at 10:08 am
I actually linked to that article a while back, but then yesterday saw a pointer to it and realized I had never added it to my links archive so I thought I’d give it some more exposure.
I didn’t realize everybody had an iPod, can you back them up with some figures please? Also, there are lots of things many people have yet they don’t get free PR. For example, Windows has a higher than 95% market share, which one can certainly consider a majority and that “everyone has it” compared to 1-2% Apple market share. Yet compare the amount of media attention to Windows vs MacOS. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to hear about Windows all the time, but to suggest that the iPod get so much attention solely because of market share seems a bit off.
By the way, I had also linked to this spoof ad back then and there is always the iFlea video as well. How exactly was the iPod mini that much better and different from the original iPod and then the iPod nano that much better and different from the mini that it deserved so much press? Neither was that much better or different, Apple is just brilliant with getting free PR for their products. They certainly cannot be faulted for that.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
“Everyone” is hyperbole, yes. I only mean that Apple is the by-far dominant player in this arena. Windows is dominant in the OS arena, you say, and it doesn’t get a lot of good press. This is true, so clearly dominance in the marketplace isn’t sufficient to get that kind of media attention. Another factor is that Apple’s iPod is more than a utilitarian tool; it’s fashion, “cool” and sex appeal. Sometimes people dismiss this factor as trickery and marketing slight of hand. I, myself, think it’s perfectly legitimate to make things that are elegant and beautiful as well as functional. People invest themselves emotionally in such products.
Microsoft does not seem to care about such things. Walt Mossberg wrote a recent piece explaining why.